State v. Tennyson’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably People v. Buffum (1953), State v. Thompson (1966)
53 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Carey · State v. Sweeney · Holden v. First National Bank & Trust Co. · State v. Durnam · People v. . McGonegal
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * pj. jg por iegisiature and not the court to create exceptions, if there are to be any. Where a statute is couched in broad and comprehensive language admitting of no exceptions, the court is not justified in engrafting thereon exceptions, however much it may deem the public welfare to require them” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The statute plainly contemplates two persons as cooperating in the commission of the crime, the one being the guilty person against whom the penalties of the statute are directed, and the other, the subject upon whose body the crime is committed. It then proceeds to define the respective crimes committed by the respective persons participating in the act, and pronounces different penalties for the respective offenses. It is quite clear that the woman spoken of in the statute is not regarded as one of the persons who could be guilty of the crime described in the 294th section (abortion), and that she could not therefore be indicted under that section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Clapp““Where the acts of several participants are declared by statute to constitute separate and distinct crimes, the partici pants guilty of one crime are not accomplices of those who are guilty of a separate and distinct crime. . . . The plain ■ reason is that an accomplice must participate or be concerned in the commission of the specific crime with which the defendant is charged. The test is whether or not the alleged accomplice could be indicted and punished for the crime with which the accused is charged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.